Unless your evidence is so conclusive that no christian on earth can disagree, it is still based on belief/faith..

Yes but that relates to my disbelief in named gods not my lack of belief in undefined gods. Both come under the term atheism and the positive belief
in the first instance does not confer a positive belief in the second.

But havent you answered the big question now? Wether you believe in deity's or not... you still choose to believe... Its a matter of where your
belief is placed in the whole spectrum...

@RIVAL

Ignorance is not the same as belief. atheist and theists are not ignorantly proffessing their faith. for one both sides tend to make their theory
sound as fact by again accepting "hints" to strengthen their POV.

However in the end it is a matter of acceptance and not ignorance.. You acccept a certain take on the subject as fact because you feel the pro's and
con's point you to a certain conclusion... Again, faith!!

Believing that your father is the strongest in the world and not believing your neighbour is the strongest in the world, in the end it comes to the
same thing... its an idea accepted as fact...

Yes, and it didn't make any sense hence why I wondered if you even knew what we were talking about...

You said:

Lack of empirical evidence can only bring you so far as to say that the probability of God existing is slim, but you cannot know God does not
exist from that alone. So, if you don't know God does not exist, then that means you believe He doesn't exist.

Thus by your logic not knowing that something does not exist means that one must believe that it indeed does not exist. That just doesn’t make
sense.

No. You're somehow misconstruing what I wrote. What you're quoting is a reply to atheism. Atheists either believe that God does not exist or they
flat-out claim He does not exist. They arrive at that conclusion in various ways, one of which being there is no empirical evidence that God exists.
However, having good reason to--keyword here--believe--God does not exist is not the same as having certain knowledge that He does in fact not exist.
Obviously, the atheist does not have certain knowledge that God does not exist, so they're left with a belief. They choose to believe God does not
exist because they feel He is improbable or illogical. Again, the keyword here is believe.

No, saying “I don’t believe in deities” is not the same as saying “I believe there are no deities”. The former is a lack of belief which is
not itself a belief.

Then you are agnostic and not an atheist.
Now on the point of the christian god you represent yourself as atheist with the accompanying disbelief in god AKA the belief that the christian god
does NOT exist...

When you come from a Pro-Religious background and are conditioned to believe people fall into one of two categories (believers or non-believers),
there is no changing your mind. It is sad that some people are so indoctrinated by religion that they do not understand one can abstain from believing
in something without making that a belief in itself.

For example:

Person A believes in Reptilians.

Person B does NOT believe in Reptilians.

Does person A have a disbelief in Reptilians? No, clearly that person does not have a disbelieve in Reptilians.

Does person B have a belief in Reptilians? No, clearly that person does not belief in Reptilians like person A does.

Disbelief DOES NOT = belief, so strop trying to make it seem as if they are one and the same.

And may I remind you that both sides are equal only to the notion of existence. Start throwing in godly powers and answering prayers , you know the
"godly" stuff and the odds drop towards impossibility.

Atheists either believe that God does not exist or they flat-out claim He does not exist.

This is where those wires are getting crossed. This is not the only definition of atheism.

As I have said a number of times atheism breaks down into the prefix “a” meaning “without” and the word “theism” which means the belief in
a god or gods. Thus atheism literally means without the belief in a god or gods.

I also provided a dictionary definition from Princeton University;

Noun
•S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
•S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

You cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” You have to pick specific doctrines.

If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God™ just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God™ might not
mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they have rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot
know.

Many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine..

Im not saying that when you really have cancer that you should start praying... never heard of a case of a deity placing a broken bone back in
place..

But you are right when saying that betting on the existence of a deity merely STARTS a journey towards finding the real deity... But still you are
left with the option of simply DYING when your time is up or trying to attain one of those numerous promises given in the various holy books...

I discussed this with alot of people... I can imagine most people saying that its to much of a haslle and they'd rather not. but what if its your
childs life you're talking about.. can you really think so lightly about the life of your child? The very reason I am a theist is because if there is
even a chance of 1 in 10000 that I can prolongue the life-expectancy and -quality of my children i'd do it...

You can be agnostic and atheist at the same time. Also see my link to agnostic atheism. You
can even be theist and agnostic.

Agnostic isn't really a useful classification. It only says "we do not know if god(s) exist or not". Doesn't that make anyone agnostic, except for
the delusional/extremist? If you know, you don't need to believe anymore. So any non-agnostic does not believe by definition, they claim they
know.

In my opinion "atheist" is much more clear classification for people who do not believe in god.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
When you come from a Pro-Religious background and are conditioned to believe people fall into one of two categories (believers or non-believers),
there is no changing your mind. It is sad that some people are so indoctrinated by religion that they do not understand one can abstain from believing
in something without making that a belief in itself.

For example:

Person A believes in Reptilians.

Person B does not believe in Reptilians.

Does person A have a disbelief in Reptilians? No, clearly that person does not have a disbelieve in Reptilians.

Does person B have a belief in Reptilians? No, clearly that person does not belief in Reptilians like person A does.

Disbelief DOES NOT = belief, so strop trying to make it seem as if they are one and the same.

[edit on 30/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Nice phrasing... try this one...

Does person A believe reptilians are real? yes

Does person B believe reptilians are a fairytale? yes.................

The point is that even when choosing to NOT believe in whatever random thing one can believe in, you are infact choosing to believe something else, in
the above case person B chooses to BELIEVE reptillians are not real...

Does person B believe reptilians are a fairytale? yes.................

The point is that even when choosing to NOT believe in whatever random thing one can believe in, you are infact choosing to believe something else, in
the above case person B chooses to BELIEVE reptillians are not real...

Atheists are forced to make their disbelief a belief because religion surrounds them constantly and they cannot escape making an opinion. If
religion did not intrude on a person's life and they did not have to make a decision, they would not even state "they do not believe in God". You
the OP are looking at this topic through a Religion-biased framework where their beliefs are judged as beliefs even when there is nothing to believe
in...

Atheists are forced to make their disbelief a belief because religion surrounds them constantly and they cannot escape making an opinion. If
religion did not intrude on a person's life and they did not have to make a decision, they would not even state "they do not believe in God".

Check. Mate.

Hahahaha.... Seriously this discussion is entertaining

So now its the fault of christians that what is described as believing, would not be present when taking religion out of the equasion? This opens up a
whole new discussion but hey... I'll give it a go..

Random scientists lab.. random experiment...
BEFORE the results are reached by conclusion of the experiment, What would you call the 15 different hypothesis(ses?) jotted down on the papers of the
15 different scientists? are they not simply a personal belief of what the outcome of the experiment will be? And is it not equally a belief for 2
scientists to jot down a complete OPPOSITE hypothesis?

Originally posted by faceoff85
Does person A believe reptilians are real? yes

Does person B believe reptilians are a fairytale? yes.................

The point is that even when choosing to NOT believe in whatever random thing one can believe in, you are infact choosing to believe something else, in
the above case person B chooses to BELIEVE reptillians are not real...

How is something based on piles and piles of evidence still a believe? Isn't there something like "beyond reasonable doubt"? Else we can call
everything a believe, and the word becomes totally meaningless. Or maybe we should call everything a believe and add a scale to it. For example, I
believe(1) I drank coffee this morning, and I believe(10) zurgons from dimension 32 are playing ping pong in my left shoe.

Originally posted by faceoff85
Hahahaha.... Seriously this discussion is entertaining

Agreed.

So now its the fault of christians that what is described as believing, would not be present when taking religion out of the equasion? This
opens up a whole new discussion but hey... I'll give it a go..

Who said anything about Christians? You do know there are hundreds of religions and belief systems, right? Judaism and Islam are also organised
religions that intrude on peoples' lives from the moment they can.

Random scientists lab.. random experiment...
BEFORE the results are reached by conclusion of the experiment, What would you call the 15 different hypothesis(ses?) jotted down on the papers of the
15 different scientists? are they not simply a personal belief of what the outcome of the experiment will be? And is it not equally a belief for 2
scientists to jot down a complete OPPOSITE hypothesis?

Not worthy of comparison. What are the variables? That is crucial to include. If they are predicting the temperature of an object (starting at 1
degree temperature) after X minutes in an incubator, and fourteen write values ranging from 2-100 and one writes 1 (remaining the same), you COULD
argue that 14 agreed the temperature would change and one said it wouldn't.

But isn't that really 3 separate beliefs being presented as 2?
(1) temperature will rise
(2) temperature will decrease
(3) temperature will stay the same

Atheists either believe that God does not exist or they flat-out claim He does not exist.

This is where those wires are getting crossed. This is not the only definition of atheism.

As I have said a number of times atheism breaks down into the prefix “a” meaning “without” and the word “theism” which means the belief in
a god or gods. Thus atheism literally means without the belief in a god or gods.

I also provided a dictionary definition from Princeton University;

Noun
•S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
•S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

See my reply to ChickenPie above; your definition of atheism is incomplete.

To be frank, I think you're just bull#ting to avoid the strong points I've made. You didn't even bother to rebut what I wrote. Instead, you decided
to argue over the definition of atheist again.

If you want to define an atheist as someone who is without belief in God, then fine, but I don't see how that refutes the points I've made. One who
is without belief in God must have had reached that point in some fashion, one reason being that the person is utterly ignorant. For example, babies
are utterly ignorant, and if we're using the definition of atheist given by you, then all babies are atheists. But then there are also the educated
and intelligent adults who are atheists by choice. Surely you can see the difference between a baby who is an atheist out of utter ignorance and a
grown man who is an atheist because he feels it to be a logical stance? Regardless, the former realize the possibility of there being an entity who
created everything; they then weigh that possibility against empirical evidence, logic, etc., and then they reach a final conclusion.

Now that we understand each other... how does this not make sense to you? I rewrote the last bit because I think it may have been confusing you... For
what reason I don't know. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about atheists.

Lack of empirical evidence can only bring you so far as to say that the probability of God existing is slim, but you cannot know God does not exist
from that alone. So, if you don't know God does not exist, then you're left with a belief He doesn't exist. PS: I'm talking about atheism here.

Hey have no concept of god. No basis for disbelief. No basis for Atheism.

Atheism is a viewpoint on a metaphysical subject. If no outlet for metaphysics is learned or understood then atheism cannot be the label. It would
be like labeling them as aphysicists just because they had no clue whatsoever.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.